[nirvana]

I'm sorry, I was making a different point. I didn't mean to imply that deterrent force is immoral... just that the amount is something that needs to be arbitrated, rather than decided solely by the victim of the crime. That is to say, if you stole a car and used it for a week, you'd owe equivalent to the rental of the car, and whatever else is necessary to make he owner whole -- thus that includes compensation for any consequential results (like, maybe he lost money because he'd been hired to do a job and couldn't' do that job during the week because you had his car.) There's also, from the perspective I was describing, a compensation that covers hassle, inconvenience, and the fact that your actions were morally wrong. So, yes, there should be a deterrence and yes, it is owed to the victim, but it should be adjudicated. Its possible that violating the privacy of the thief is crime that is greater than the actual theft of the laptop in the first place (if you were to reduce both to monetary damages.)